NHTSA Interpretation File Search Overview Search Tool Request an Interpretation

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.

An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.

Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
Some combination of the above, or other, factors.

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.

Single word search

Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.

Multiple word search

Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.

Connector word search

Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.

Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.

Phrase in double quotes

Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.

Conjunctive search

Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.

Wildcard

Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).

Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).

Not

Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”

Complex searches

You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.

Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).

Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 6781 - 6790 of 16517

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam3077 Open Mr. Bruce Willhite, 2793A Clairmont Road, N.E. #214, Atlanta, GA 30329; Mr. Bruce Willhite 2793A Clairmont Road N.E. #214 Atlanta GA 30329; Dear Mr. Willhite: This is in response to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weine of my office on June 29, 1979, about your intention to start a business that will sell and install auxiliary diesel fuel tanks in passenger cars. You noted that you would like to install the tanks in used vehicles and possibly in new ones. Specifically, you asked what Federal law applies to your proposed activities and whether these activities would violate any Federal law.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applicable either to vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. FMVSS 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, (see enclosed copy) is a vehicle standard which applies to vehicles, including passenger cars, which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. (this includes both gasoline and diesel fuel).; Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicles is delivered to the ultimate customer. The NHTSA regulations include two measures designed to ensure compliance with applicable FMVSS's until this delivery. First, manufacturers of new vehicles are required to affix to each vehicle they produce a label which certifies the vehicle's compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. Second, any person who prior to the first sale, alters a certified vehicle in a manner that significantly affects either its configuration of purpose is considered to be not only an alterer but also a manufacturer and therefore, must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS's. (49 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 567.7).; Should a noncompliance due to an alterer's modification be discovere in a recertified vehicle, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act.) The civil penalty imposed could be up to $1000 for each violation of an applicable FMVSS. (Section 109 of the Act.); Since the installation of an auxiliary fuel tank significantly affect the configuration of an automobile, the legal provision summarized above would apply to you as an installer of auxiliary fuel tanks in new cars (i.e., cars not yet purchased for purposes other tan resale and delivered to that purchaser). Thus, upon installing an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle you would be required to affix a label to the vehicle stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable FMVSS's including FMVSS 301-75 in effect on a date not later than the date on which the alterations were completed (49 C.F.R. Part 567.7). This means that not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by FMVSS 301-75 but that the system as supplemented by the auxiliary tank added by you to a new car must meet them also.; As an installer of auxiliary fuel tanks in new vehicles, you will als be subject to the provisions of sections 151 et seq. of the Act. (see enclosure). If you or this agency finds that there is a safety defect in the manner in which you have installed auxiliary tanks in new vehicles, you would be required to notify purchasers and remedy the defect. Under sections 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a) of the Act, any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1000 per violation.; As a dealer in and installer of auxiliary fuel tanks in used vehicles you would be subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) in essence prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment of elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. there is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle. Specifically, the section provides:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...<<<; A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liabl for a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act.); If one of the persons or entities listed above adds an auxiliar gasoline tank to a vehicle manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (H.R. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1974)). Such reduction of performance could occur, for example, if gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, and if the design, materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.; In closing, I would like to point out that, in addition to the Federa law discussed above, there may be State products liability laws applicable to your proposed activities. As an installer of auxiliary fuel tanks, you could be liable for the manner and location in which the tanks are installed. Therefore, you may wish to consult a local lawyer before starting your new business.; I hope that you will find this response helpful. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4618 Open Mr. Sadato Kadoya Manager, Safety Engineering Mazda (North America), Inc. Research & Development Center 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48105; Mr. Sadato Kadoya Manager Safety Engineering Mazda (North America) Inc. Research & Development Center 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor MI 48105; "Dear Mr. Kadoya: This is to provide you with a clarification of ou letter to you dated November 3, l988, based upon your telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office. Our letter advised you that Standard No. l08 did not preclude the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors. In reply, you have cited two provisions of the standard which appear in conflict with this interpretation. With respect to a headlamp equipped with one or two HBl light sources, S4.1.1.36(e)(l) states that 'There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual HBl or adjustment of reflector aim with two HBls .' To similar effect with respect to HB3 and HB4 light sources is S4.1.1.36(f)(l). Standard No. l08 has been amended effective June 8, l989, and the corresponding requirements are now S7.5(d)(l) and (e)(l). Each has been revised to state 'There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual light source, or, if there are two light sources, independent adjustment of each reflector.' We believe that the revised wording of the new sections clearly allow the adjustment of single reflectors in single light source replaceable bulb headlamps, and dual reflectors in dual-light source replaceable bulb headlamps, provided that the reflectors are not capable of independent adjustment. Further, new S7.7.2.2 specifically addresses how moveable reflectors must operate. The intent of these sections is to prohibit headlamp designs in which the bulb alone is adjusted to aim the headlamp since this is contrary to mechanical aim requirements, or, where there is more than one reflector in a headlamp, designs in which each reflector may be adjusted independently, since this is also contrary to achieving precise mechanical aim. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /";
ID: aiam3427 Open Mr. Barry N. Aebischer, Marketing Coordinator, Carabela USA, Inc., 4129 S. Sheridan, Tulsa, OK 74145; Mr. Barry N. Aebischer Marketing Coordinator Carabela USA Inc. 4129 S. Sheridan Tulsa OK 74145; Dear Mr. Aebischer: This is in reply to your letter of June 8, 1981 requesting 'th candlepower rating on a moped headlamp.'; I enclose a copy of SAE Standard J584 Motorcycle and Motor Drive Cycle Headlamps April 1964, which contains the information that you request. Most mopeds develop 5 horsepower or less and thus qualify as a 'motor driven cycle.'; If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3309 Open Mr. Bart Achille, National Sales Manager, American Moped Associates, 1852 Langley Avenue, Irvine, California 92714; Mr. Bart Achille National Sales Manager American Moped Associates 1852 Langley Avenue Irvine California 92714; Dear Mr. Achille: This is in reply to your letter of June 11, 1980, asking whether push-in type supplement engine stop switch is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays.; Table 1 of Standard No. 123 does not specify the method of operation o the supplement engine stop control and, as you correctly guessed, your planned switch is therefore not prohibited. In accordance with the standard, however, it must be located on the right handlebar.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1334 Open Mr. James M. Robertson, University Club Tower, Suite 2410, Tulsa, OK 74119; Mr. James M. Robertson University Club Tower Suite 2410 Tulsa OK 74119; Dear Mr. Robertson: I am enclosing a copy of Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements 49 CFR 580, issued under the authority of S 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, which like all regulations of this and other Federal agencies is published in the Federal Register. This daily publication can be obtained at a price of $45.00 per year from : Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.; Interpretation of the regulation to date has established that th odometer disclosure statement can be made in any format which includes the required information. Commercially printed forms, handwritten forms, and forms included in the 'buyer's order form' used by dealers have all been approved. The government does not print forms, but the regulation includes an example of an acceptable format.; If you have further questions, please write again. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4136 Open Mr. Earl J. Ogletree, Mr. John Gaski, Harley Products Inc., 904 S Prospect Avenue, Park Ridge, IL 60068; Mr. Earl J. Ogletree Mr. John Gaski Harley Products Inc. 904 S Prospect Avenue Park Ridge IL 60068; Dear Mr. Ogletree and Mr. Gaski: Thank you for your letter of March 28, 1986, asking how our regulation would affect a product you intend to manufacture both as an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment and as an item of original equipment on some vehicles imported into this country. You described the product as a sun visor that clips onto a vehicle's regular visor. You further explained that the sun visor has an extension arm that allows the visor to be moved to filter out the sun coming in through the window to the left of the driver, or moved below the original equipment visor between the two original equipment visors. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations affect your proposed visor.; Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety law and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of your proposed sun visor in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.; We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazin Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and othe sun screen devices, such as the sun visors described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.; After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicl are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.; If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3759 Open Mr. Troy C. Martin, Specifications Chief, State Purchasing and General Services Commission, Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Building, P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Station, Austin, TX 78711-3047; Mr. Troy C. Martin Specifications Chief State Purchasing and General Services Commission Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Building P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Station Austin TX 78711-3047; Dear Mr. Martin: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff seeking a interpretation of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR S 571.222). You indicated that you have been informed that section S5.1.2 of that standard requires that 90 percent of the total projected area of the seat backs on school buses must lie between a horizontal plane passing through the seating reference point and a parallel horizontal plane 20 inches above the seating reference point, and that this requirement appeared to be a geometric impossibility. The information you received about the requirements of section S5.1.2 is erroneous.; Section S5.1.2 does not specify any requirements for the total projected area of the seat back. It simply mandates that the projected area of the seat back between the two planes* you described at at least 90 percent of the width of the seat multiplied by 20. This requirement is very simple to satisfy geometrically by using a rectangle. If the seat back were rectangular, the area between the two planes would be 100 percent of the width of the seat multiplied by 20. The agency allows the width of the seat back to be multiplied by 90 percent so as to permit the use of seat backs which taper up at the top, but which still provide an adequate level of safety protection for the occupants.; The reason for specifying a requirement for the amount of area a sea back must have between these two planes is to ensure that 'compartmentalization' is not compromised. Compartmentalization is the term for protecting the occupants in the event of a crash by confining them within an area of sturdy, well-padded seats. If the seat back in front of a school bus occupant occupied less than 90 percent of the area between the two planes (the area that occupant is most likely to contact in case of a crash), the padded area to cushion the blow of that occupant might not be sufficient.; If you have any further questions or need further information on thi subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke at this address and at (202) 246-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1764 Open Mr. Toshihiko Sotohara,Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co.,1118, Sazuchi, Bessho,Himejim, Japan; Mr. Toshihiko Sotohara Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co. 1118 Sazuchi Bessho Himejim Japan; Dear Mr. Sotohara:#Please forgive the delay in responding to you letter of November 22, 1974, requesting confirmation of your interpretation that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, does not require you to label the brake hose and brake hose assemblies which you manufacture with a DUNS manufacturer's code number.#Your interpretation is correct. S5.2.2, S5.2.3, and S5.2.4 of Standard No. 106-74 were amended on January 29, 1974, (39 FR 3680, Docket No. 1-5, Notice 9) to no longer require a manufacturer's code number. A designation identifying you as the manufacturer is required, however. The designation, 'NCRN', as described in your letter, already satisfied this requirement. This designation is now on file in the Office of Standards Enforcement.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam0876 Open Mr. William R. Graham, Bus and Truck Supply Company, 315 Continental Avenue, Dallas, TX; Mr. William R. Graham Bus and Truck Supply Company 315 Continental Avenue Dallas TX; Dear Mr. Graham: This is in response to your letter of August 14, 1972, requesting a interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.; With respect to the rear emergency exit, you state that the top of th rear seat extends above the bottom of the rear window and that there is adequate clearance between the top of the seat and the top of the window to meet the requirements of S5.4', and you inquire whether this configuration satisfies the requirements of the standard. Assuming that the seat back does not obstruct the exit opening required by S5.4, from the information provided, it appears that the rear emergency exit you describe meets the requirements of Standard 217.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4566 Open Mr. David W. Raney Environmental Activities Manager Saab-Scania of America, Inc. Saab Drive P. O. Box 697 Orange, CT 06477; Mr. David W. Raney Environmental Activities Manager Saab-Scania of America Inc. Saab Drive P. O. Box 697 Orange CT 06477; "Dear Mr. Raney: Thank you for your letter requesting ou interpretation of 49 CFR Parts 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, and 543, Exemption from Theft Prevention Standard. I apologize for the delay in this response. You asked two questions. Your first question concerned the scope of the exemptions granted under Part 543. You noted that the Saab 9000 car line has been determined to be a high theft car line. Accordingly, Part 541 requires that both the original equipment and the replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 be marked with certain information. Your letter states that your company marked both the original equipment and replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 in the 1987 and 1988 model years. For the 1989 model year, the Saab 9000 was granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, pursuant to the provisions of Part 543. Your company understands that this exemption means that the original equipment parts on the Saab 9000 are no longer required to be marked. However, the replacement parts for the Saab 9000 that are produced in 1989 and thereafter pose a more difficult problem. On the one hand, Saab could consider these parts as replacement parts for the 1989 models, which would mean these parts are exempted from the parts marking requirement. On the other hand, these parts could also be considered as replacement parts for the 1987 and 1988 Saab 9000 line, which would mean the parts have to be marked because no exemption applies for such parts. The answer to your question is that once a high theft line is granted a Part 543 exemption in whole from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, as the Saab 9000 was, the replacement parts for that line are also exempted from the parts marking requirements even if those parts can be used as replacement parts for the high theft line during model years for which no exemption applies. NHTSA addressed this issue in the preamble to the September 8, 1987 final rule establishing Part 543 (52 FR 33821), as follows: Section 602(d)(2)(A) of Title VI (of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act) states that the vehicle theft prevention standard can not require 'identification of any part which is not designed as a replacement for a major part required to be identified under such standard.' (Emphasis added.) As long as a manufacturer is producing a car line under an exemption granted in whole, there is no requirement to identify major parts otherwise subject to the theft standard, therefore, NHTSA can not require marking replacement parts. 52 FR 33828. Applying this reasoning to your company's situation, Saab was free to discontinue marking both the original equipment and replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 as soon as the Part 543 exemption took effect, provided that Saab actually installed the antitheft device described in its petition as original equipment on 1989 Saab 9000 vehicles. Your second question asked whether the manufacturer of a high theft car lines that has been granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements, pursuant to Part 543, may discontinue the installation of the antitheft device and resume parts marking in some future model year. We addressed this issue in detail in a May 4, 1988 letter to Ms. Deborah Bakker, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. A manufacturer of a high theft line that has received an exemption under Part 543 is required to either install the antitheft device as standard equipment on every vehicle in that line produced during a model year or to mark all original equipment and replacement major parts for that line produced during the model year. As long as Saab marked all of the original equipment and replacement parts produced in a model year for the Saab 9000, your company is free to stop installing the antitheft device on those cars. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

Request an Interpretation

You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:

The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590

If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.

Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam3077 Open Mr. Bruce Willhite, 2793A Clairmont Road, N.E. #214, Atlanta, GA 30329; Mr. Bruce Willhite 2793A Clairmont Road N.E. #214 Atlanta GA 30329; Dear Mr. Willhite: This is in response to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weine of my office on June 29, 1979, about your intention to start a business that will sell and install auxiliary diesel fuel tanks in passenger cars. You noted that you would like to install the tanks in used vehicles and possibly in new ones. Specifically, you asked what Federal law applies to your proposed activities and whether these activities would violate any Federal law.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applicable either to vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. FMVSS 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, (see enclosed copy) is a vehicle standard which applies to vehicles, including passenger cars, which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. (this includes both gasoline and diesel fuel).; Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicles is delivered to the ultimate customer. The NHTSA regulations include two measures designed to ensure compliance with applicable FMVSS's until this delivery. First, manufacturers of new vehicles are required to affix to each vehicle they produce a label which certifies the vehicle's compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. Second, any person who prior to the first sale, alters a certified vehicle in a manner that significantly affects either its configuration of purpose is considered to be not only an alterer but also a manufacturer and therefore, must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS's. (49 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 567.7).; Should a noncompliance due to an alterer's modification be discovere in a recertified vehicle, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act.) The civil penalty imposed could be up to $1000 for each violation of an applicable FMVSS. (Section 109 of the Act.); Since the installation of an auxiliary fuel tank significantly affect the configuration of an automobile, the legal provision summarized above would apply to you as an installer of auxiliary fuel tanks in new cars (i.e., cars not yet purchased for purposes other tan resale and delivered to that purchaser). Thus, upon installing an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle you would be required to affix a label to the vehicle stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable FMVSS's including FMVSS 301-75 in effect on a date not later than the date on which the alterations were completed (49 C.F.R. Part 567.7). This means that not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by FMVSS 301-75 but that the system as supplemented by the auxiliary tank added by you to a new car must meet them also.; As an installer of auxiliary fuel tanks in new vehicles, you will als be subject to the provisions of sections 151 et seq. of the Act. (see enclosure). If you or this agency finds that there is a safety defect in the manner in which you have installed auxiliary tanks in new vehicles, you would be required to notify purchasers and remedy the defect. Under sections 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a) of the Act, any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1000 per violation.; As a dealer in and installer of auxiliary fuel tanks in used vehicles you would be subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) in essence prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment of elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. there is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle. Specifically, the section provides:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...<<<; A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liabl for a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act.); If one of the persons or entities listed above adds an auxiliar gasoline tank to a vehicle manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (H.R. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1974)). Such reduction of performance could occur, for example, if gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, and if the design, materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.; In closing, I would like to point out that, in addition to the Federa law discussed above, there may be State products liability laws applicable to your proposed activities. As an installer of auxiliary fuel tanks, you could be liable for the manner and location in which the tanks are installed. Therefore, you may wish to consult a local lawyer before starting your new business.; I hope that you will find this response helpful. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4618 Open Mr. Sadato Kadoya Manager, Safety Engineering Mazda (North America), Inc. Research & Development Center 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48105; Mr. Sadato Kadoya Manager Safety Engineering Mazda (North America) Inc. Research & Development Center 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor MI 48105; "Dear Mr. Kadoya: This is to provide you with a clarification of ou letter to you dated November 3, l988, based upon your telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office. Our letter advised you that Standard No. l08 did not preclude the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors. In reply, you have cited two provisions of the standard which appear in conflict with this interpretation. With respect to a headlamp equipped with one or two HBl light sources, S4.1.1.36(e)(l) states that 'There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual HBl or adjustment of reflector aim with two HBls .' To similar effect with respect to HB3 and HB4 light sources is S4.1.1.36(f)(l). Standard No. l08 has been amended effective June 8, l989, and the corresponding requirements are now S7.5(d)(l) and (e)(l). Each has been revised to state 'There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual light source, or, if there are two light sources, independent adjustment of each reflector.' We believe that the revised wording of the new sections clearly allow the adjustment of single reflectors in single light source replaceable bulb headlamps, and dual reflectors in dual-light source replaceable bulb headlamps, provided that the reflectors are not capable of independent adjustment. Further, new S7.7.2.2 specifically addresses how moveable reflectors must operate. The intent of these sections is to prohibit headlamp designs in which the bulb alone is adjusted to aim the headlamp since this is contrary to mechanical aim requirements, or, where there is more than one reflector in a headlamp, designs in which each reflector may be adjusted independently, since this is also contrary to achieving precise mechanical aim. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /";
ID: aiam3427 Open Mr. Barry N. Aebischer, Marketing Coordinator, Carabela USA, Inc., 4129 S. Sheridan, Tulsa, OK 74145; Mr. Barry N. Aebischer Marketing Coordinator Carabela USA Inc. 4129 S. Sheridan Tulsa OK 74145; Dear Mr. Aebischer: This is in reply to your letter of June 8, 1981 requesting 'th candlepower rating on a moped headlamp.'; I enclose a copy of SAE Standard J584 Motorcycle and Motor Drive Cycle Headlamps April 1964, which contains the information that you request. Most mopeds develop 5 horsepower or less and thus qualify as a 'motor driven cycle.'; If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3309 Open Mr. Bart Achille, National Sales Manager, American Moped Associates, 1852 Langley Avenue, Irvine, California 92714; Mr. Bart Achille National Sales Manager American Moped Associates 1852 Langley Avenue Irvine California 92714; Dear Mr. Achille: This is in reply to your letter of June 11, 1980, asking whether push-in type supplement engine stop switch is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays.; Table 1 of Standard No. 123 does not specify the method of operation o the supplement engine stop control and, as you correctly guessed, your planned switch is therefore not prohibited. In accordance with the standard, however, it must be located on the right handlebar.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1334 Open Mr. James M. Robertson, University Club Tower, Suite 2410, Tulsa, OK 74119; Mr. James M. Robertson University Club Tower Suite 2410 Tulsa OK 74119; Dear Mr. Robertson: I am enclosing a copy of Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements 49 CFR 580, issued under the authority of S 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, which like all regulations of this and other Federal agencies is published in the Federal Register. This daily publication can be obtained at a price of $45.00 per year from : Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.; Interpretation of the regulation to date has established that th odometer disclosure statement can be made in any format which includes the required information. Commercially printed forms, handwritten forms, and forms included in the 'buyer's order form' used by dealers have all been approved. The government does not print forms, but the regulation includes an example of an acceptable format.; If you have further questions, please write again. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4136 Open Mr. Earl J. Ogletree, Mr. John Gaski, Harley Products Inc., 904 S Prospect Avenue, Park Ridge, IL 60068; Mr. Earl J. Ogletree Mr. John Gaski Harley Products Inc. 904 S Prospect Avenue Park Ridge IL 60068; Dear Mr. Ogletree and Mr. Gaski: Thank you for your letter of March 28, 1986, asking how our regulation would affect a product you intend to manufacture both as an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment and as an item of original equipment on some vehicles imported into this country. You described the product as a sun visor that clips onto a vehicle's regular visor. You further explained that the sun visor has an extension arm that allows the visor to be moved to filter out the sun coming in through the window to the left of the driver, or moved below the original equipment visor between the two original equipment visors. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations affect your proposed visor.; Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety law and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of your proposed sun visor in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.; We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazin Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and othe sun screen devices, such as the sun visors described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.; After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicl are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.; If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3759 Open Mr. Troy C. Martin, Specifications Chief, State Purchasing and General Services Commission, Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Building, P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Station, Austin, TX 78711-3047; Mr. Troy C. Martin Specifications Chief State Purchasing and General Services Commission Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Building P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Station Austin TX 78711-3047; Dear Mr. Martin: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff seeking a interpretation of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR S 571.222). You indicated that you have been informed that section S5.1.2 of that standard requires that 90 percent of the total projected area of the seat backs on school buses must lie between a horizontal plane passing through the seating reference point and a parallel horizontal plane 20 inches above the seating reference point, and that this requirement appeared to be a geometric impossibility. The information you received about the requirements of section S5.1.2 is erroneous.; Section S5.1.2 does not specify any requirements for the total projected area of the seat back. It simply mandates that the projected area of the seat back between the two planes* you described at at least 90 percent of the width of the seat multiplied by 20. This requirement is very simple to satisfy geometrically by using a rectangle. If the seat back were rectangular, the area between the two planes would be 100 percent of the width of the seat multiplied by 20. The agency allows the width of the seat back to be multiplied by 90 percent so as to permit the use of seat backs which taper up at the top, but which still provide an adequate level of safety protection for the occupants.; The reason for specifying a requirement for the amount of area a sea back must have between these two planes is to ensure that 'compartmentalization' is not compromised. Compartmentalization is the term for protecting the occupants in the event of a crash by confining them within an area of sturdy, well-padded seats. If the seat back in front of a school bus occupant occupied less than 90 percent of the area between the two planes (the area that occupant is most likely to contact in case of a crash), the padded area to cushion the blow of that occupant might not be sufficient.; If you have any further questions or need further information on thi subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke at this address and at (202) 246-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1764 Open Mr. Toshihiko Sotohara,Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co.,1118, Sazuchi, Bessho,Himejim, Japan; Mr. Toshihiko Sotohara Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co. 1118 Sazuchi Bessho Himejim Japan; Dear Mr. Sotohara:#Please forgive the delay in responding to you letter of November 22, 1974, requesting confirmation of your interpretation that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, does not require you to label the brake hose and brake hose assemblies which you manufacture with a DUNS manufacturer's code number.#Your interpretation is correct. S5.2.2, S5.2.3, and S5.2.4 of Standard No. 106-74 were amended on January 29, 1974, (39 FR 3680, Docket No. 1-5, Notice 9) to no longer require a manufacturer's code number. A designation identifying you as the manufacturer is required, however. The designation, 'NCRN', as described in your letter, already satisfied this requirement. This designation is now on file in the Office of Standards Enforcement.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam0876 Open Mr. William R. Graham, Bus and Truck Supply Company, 315 Continental Avenue, Dallas, TX; Mr. William R. Graham Bus and Truck Supply Company 315 Continental Avenue Dallas TX; Dear Mr. Graham: This is in response to your letter of August 14, 1972, requesting a interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.; With respect to the rear emergency exit, you state that the top of th rear seat extends above the bottom of the rear window and that there is adequate clearance between the top of the seat and the top of the window to meet the requirements of S5.4', and you inquire whether this configuration satisfies the requirements of the standard. Assuming that the seat back does not obstruct the exit opening required by S5.4, from the information provided, it appears that the rear emergency exit you describe meets the requirements of Standard 217.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4566 Open Mr. David W. Raney Environmental Activities Manager Saab-Scania of America, Inc. Saab Drive P. O. Box 697 Orange, CT 06477; Mr. David W. Raney Environmental Activities Manager Saab-Scania of America Inc. Saab Drive P. O. Box 697 Orange CT 06477; "Dear Mr. Raney: Thank you for your letter requesting ou interpretation of 49 CFR Parts 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, and 543, Exemption from Theft Prevention Standard. I apologize for the delay in this response. You asked two questions. Your first question concerned the scope of the exemptions granted under Part 543. You noted that the Saab 9000 car line has been determined to be a high theft car line. Accordingly, Part 541 requires that both the original equipment and the replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 be marked with certain information. Your letter states that your company marked both the original equipment and replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 in the 1987 and 1988 model years. For the 1989 model year, the Saab 9000 was granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, pursuant to the provisions of Part 543. Your company understands that this exemption means that the original equipment parts on the Saab 9000 are no longer required to be marked. However, the replacement parts for the Saab 9000 that are produced in 1989 and thereafter pose a more difficult problem. On the one hand, Saab could consider these parts as replacement parts for the 1989 models, which would mean these parts are exempted from the parts marking requirement. On the other hand, these parts could also be considered as replacement parts for the 1987 and 1988 Saab 9000 line, which would mean the parts have to be marked because no exemption applies for such parts. The answer to your question is that once a high theft line is granted a Part 543 exemption in whole from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, as the Saab 9000 was, the replacement parts for that line are also exempted from the parts marking requirements even if those parts can be used as replacement parts for the high theft line during model years for which no exemption applies. NHTSA addressed this issue in the preamble to the September 8, 1987 final rule establishing Part 543 (52 FR 33821), as follows: Section 602(d)(2)(A) of Title VI (of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act) states that the vehicle theft prevention standard can not require 'identification of any part which is not designed as a replacement for a major part required to be identified under such standard.' (Emphasis added.) As long as a manufacturer is producing a car line under an exemption granted in whole, there is no requirement to identify major parts otherwise subject to the theft standard, therefore, NHTSA can not require marking replacement parts. 52 FR 33828. Applying this reasoning to your company's situation, Saab was free to discontinue marking both the original equipment and replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 as soon as the Part 543 exemption took effect, provided that Saab actually installed the antitheft device described in its petition as original equipment on 1989 Saab 9000 vehicles. Your second question asked whether the manufacturer of a high theft car lines that has been granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements, pursuant to Part 543, may discontinue the installation of the antitheft device and resume parts marking in some future model year. We addressed this issue in detail in a May 4, 1988 letter to Ms. Deborah Bakker, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. A manufacturer of a high theft line that has received an exemption under Part 543 is required to either install the antitheft device as standard equipment on every vehicle in that line produced during a model year or to mark all original equipment and replacement major parts for that line produced during the model year. As long as Saab marked all of the original equipment and replacement parts produced in a model year for the Saab 9000, your company is free to stop installing the antitheft device on those cars. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Reasons interpretation letters in this database may not be applicable to your situation

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

More search options

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam3077

ID: aiam4618

ID: aiam3427

ID: aiam3309

ID: aiam1334

ID: aiam4136

ID: aiam3759

ID: aiam1764

ID: aiam0876

ID: aiam4566

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?